The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

My understanding of accessibility is that it is about making the best possible effort to ensure your website can be accessed by all. No-one is saying (yet) that if you've made reasonable efforts then you are still liable. It boils down the fact that Target COULD have made they site more accessible (money can certainly be no excuse) but they CHOSE not to. Therefore they deliberately chose to alienate a sector of their potential customers. Seems an odd business practice to me!

The spending power of disabled adults in the UK alone is estimated to £80 billion (Source: Department of Work and Pensions) so what business owner in their right mind would discount that so easily?

For those of you who have yet to be convinced on the value of making a site accessible and also just how easy it can be, I heartily recommend reading through http://diveintoaccessibility.org/. I found it very enlightening myself a couple of years when it was recommended to me.

Well Target don't exactly have to have alt-text for every image, just the important ones - like product images (which is an one-line change in the source code) or form image buttons (if they use those - preferably change them to normal submit buttons with a background image if they want to keep the same look).

"I disapprove of what I say,
but I will defend to the death my right to say it."

Well Target don't exactly have to have alt-text for every image, just the important ones - like product images (which is an one-line change in the source code) or form image buttons (if they use those - preferably change them to normal submit buttons with a background image if they want to keep the same look).

The image buttons can still be made easily accessible with alt attributes. The reason those buttons caused trouble was because when an image button submits there are x and y coordinates that submit with it if the mouse was used. Target's backend system checks for the existance of the x and y coords, but since a form submitted via keyboard entry won't submit x/y coords it wouldn't let a shopper through. This is also a one-line fix in the source code (check for the existance of the button variable without the x/y coords). No CSS background/overflow tomfoolery is needed here and that would only further complicate the situation.

This problem affects everyone from blind people to those with motor impairments and power users who use the keyboard almost exclusively, and it can even affect you if your mouse goes on the fritz one day and you can't head over to the store for a replacement. Apparently some people still aren't convinced this is a problem.

Luckily I missed the first few pages of this thread, otherwise I may have broken the profanity filter. Well done redux et al for a measured response to some of the rubbish posted earlier.

It does make me laugh that some of the more repellent views come from someone who apparently blogs on website revenue strategies - I wasn't aware that "insult large chunks of your potential customer base" was a legitimate strategy in that area...

No, that's not what makes you a spanner. You're a spanner for the whole "the internet is irreversibly broken, lets not bother trying to fix it" attitude.

I'd rather the people were fixed. That's a much more worthy and achievable goal.

Originally Posted by gnarly

Right now, the web is in a terrible state, but the hope is that going forward, we can try to fix old websites as best we can, and build new ones according to the best practise guidelines laid down by the governments and industry bodies - so that the web will be a more accessible place for everybody.

If they fix the people, the web will be accessible by default. The best practices and guidelines laid down by governments & industry bodies was a disgusting waste of time, energy and funds.

That money and momentum could have made a massive difference in medical research and at the least assistive technologies. Instead it makes a small difference to a tiny portion of the internet.

An "accessible web" is a short term hack, it does not address the problems nor create a long-term solution.

The problem is disabilities, the solution is medical research.

Originally Posted by gnarly

I really can't see what the problem is with this. It's really not very difficult to do.

None of us can make any conclusive statements about how difficult it is for the Target site to add alt attributes. It could be 5 minutes or 5 months. It could be automated, it could be manual.

Hmm, I don't think you really meant to say that, or were making a very broad statement.

I cannot be cured of my disability by people looking into medical research. Also its unlikely within then next 200 years of advancement they'd be able to rewire all the relevant neurons to "fix" my condition without killing me in the process – anyway I don't plan to be around next century.

Off Topic:

Have you thought that perhaps I prefer being having a disability and don’t want “curing” seriously it has its advantages.

I think nearly everyone has gone a little crazy in this conversation, not the least of which was me. And for that, I apologize. I stand by some of my original comments on this matter, but would like to clarify a few things.

1.. Accessibility is very important. IMO, EVERY web designer should make a concerted effort to implement basic accessibility features. Aural CSS shouldn't be required, but something as simple as ALT Tags should. I believe this should apply especially to any site selling something.

2. That being said, I still do believe that there simply are some things that disabled people JUST CAN'T DO. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

3. However, this is not to say that an effort should be made by all to at least attempt to make life easier for the disabled. While I think disabled people need to learn to accept life's limitations, they should not have to accept being classified as somehow "substandard".

4. Based on that, I now hope Target loses this particular case because all they were basically ASKED to do was make a reasonable effort to change a few simple tags on their site. This request wasn't unreasonable and was easily doable. They flatly refused to do it. That's crap. Now, in the loss should come the order to improve accessibility on their site, but in no way should any monetary awards be dealt.

5. Now, if (based on this case) some ambulance-chaser (it's just an experssion, folks) jumps on the bandwagon and sues Wal-Mart because they don't use Aural CSS, well, bite me.

6. So I guess the question is where does common sense lie in accessible design? Should e-commerce sites be forced to use ALT tags? Resizable-text? Why, isn't builtin accessibility in OS's enough? Aural CSS? Be limited to not using certain color combos? And who polices all this? A government? The w3c?

Bear in mind that we're talking about the web here, folks. It is, after all an inherintly visual medium. Yes, there are alternatives that allow this visual medium to be less visual in its nature, but that doesn't really take away from the base fact.

Personally, this guy shouldn't sue, though. There are better ways. The lawsuit sort of tells me that at least a small part of him is full of crap. Damages? Please... What he should have done (if he was, in fact this righteous and not just chasing cash) was start to raise awareness of this problem by getting in touch with politicians, human rights groups, etc. This way, he can have a chance at fundamentally changing what doesn't work.

I don't know what exactly it costs to make an ammendment like 508 or the DDA's, but I'd be absolutely amazed if it was free and each country didn't base their ammendments or additions on some kind of (expensive, extensive) studies involving consultion with various doctors/associations/legal teams etc, then finally taking the proposed changes through congress or parliaments.

The WAI and WCAG obviously didn't write themselves, and would certainly have involved more studies, more consultation etc, but without the governmental step at the end.

xhtmlcoder - A preference can only be had when there is more than one option available.

I was making a broad statement about fixing people, maybe some things aren't fixable. I prefer to think everything can be fixed. Given the advances made in medical surgeries over the span of my life, I'm glad other people believe everything can be fixed too.

Don't worry I know it was a broad statement and I am quite happy to remain “broken” and would actually prefer to have my condition than not; like I said it does have some very interesting advantages over someone whom doesn’t have the same condition. Even if I had the theoretical ‘option’, which we know I don’t and never will, I am happy enough with the situation.

2. That being said, I still do believe that there simply are some things that disabled people JUST CAN'T DO. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

and people with certain disabilities will not dispute that either. you won't find a blind person saying that oh yes, they can drive a car or perform dentistry.

6. So I guess the question is where does common sense lie in accessible design? Should e-commerce sites be forced to use ALT tags?

As all it would take would be a single change in a CMS template, the question is really why aren't they doing it in the first place?

Resizable-text?

as in not using pixel sized fonts? if so, yes...that's been best practice for years. should they add text resize widgets? nah, i believe that's part of the browser's remit.

Why, isn't builtin accessibility in OS's enough?

you can build in accessibility at OS level as much as you want...if the information just isn't there (an image with no alt), there's nothing the OS level tools can do.

Be limited to not using certain color combos?

to a large extent, if you separate your content from your presentation (css) you at least offer those who find your particular choice of colours unworkable a simple enough way to override it. again, best practice that can have huge access benefits as a aresult.

And who polices all this? A government? The w3c?

the government has a responsibility to enforce its disability discrimination legislations (ADA, DDA, etc). the W3C does not have a policing mandate.

Bear in mind that we're talking about the web here, folks. It is, after all an inherintly visual medium.

sorry, but...balls! what is inherently visual about it? HTML was created to mark up academic papers. papers...words. the underlying language, HTML, is sent as text. it defines abstract, structural concepts such as header, paragraph, list, etc. only after netscape got into the game and invented font tags etc the concept was sullied. http://www.w3.org/History/19921103-h...rkUp/Tags.html

Yes, there are alternatives that allow this visual medium to be less visual in its nature, but that doesn't really take away from the base fact.

if you were talking about TV or something, fair enough...but not the web. see above.

What about color blind people? Should websites be forced not to use certain colors or provide an array of different colors so that it doesn't effect them? Where do you draw the line.

hmmm...ever read the WCAG?

2.1 Ensure that all information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example from context or markup. [Priority 1]

2.2 Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast when viewed by someone having color deficits or when viewed on a black and white screen. [Priority 2 for images, Priority 3 for text].

as i mention above, using stylesheets can at least offer users with a particular colour blindness the ability to change the way a site is presented. and even if it were forced in the html itself, users can set their browsers to override colours set by a page. however, blind users can't just say "turn these images into text" if the text is just not there. is it so difficult to understand? one thing can be addressed by the user, the other can't (unless you listen to spanner boy who wants to "fix" the world, rather than invest a minimal amount of time to add a simple attribute to markup)

What about color blind people? Should websites be forced not to use certain colors or provide an array of different colors so that it doesn't effect them? Where do you draw the line.

You take it into account when you design. You don't rely purely on colour to distinguish particular parts of the design, and you make sure that the contrast between colours is high enough for someone colourblind to make out. It's not too hard really - it's just common sense and best practise, like just about everything else you do to cater for accessibility.

Does anyone else here remember a time before automatic doors, ramps and wheelchair accessible bathroom stalls?

With that in mind, has anyone else wondered how many times this exact conversation has played itself out?

For those of you in the 'this is ridiculous' camp, what the...? The only way this can possibly affect you (if you're not disabled) is by increasing the amount you can charge for an accessiblity compliant site.

Unfortunately, a lawsuit is often the only way to get a large company to listen. This is a small thing (just like a larger bathroom stall) and should be done.

I'd rather the people were fixed. That's a much more worthy and achievable goal.

We all would. But that just can't happen. Even if it could happen in the US and the UK, what about the *huge* chunks of the world that couldn't afford it?

Originally Posted by benlowry

Don't be a troll.

I'm not. I seriously can't see why you object to making the web more accessible.

Tell me, do you build websites? Do you follow best-practises for accessibility when doing so? If not, why not? (Please don't give me "I'd rather people were fixed") Or if you do, what's your problem with other companies doing the same?

I don't think the solution is html, it doesn't matter if every page I or anyone else writes from this day forward is wai 1/2/3 compliant, that ship sailed 20 billion pages ago.

It is a smaller challange to add alt text than it is to write a program which can tell a picture of a house from a picture of a sunset (Though if you do have access to software that can reliably differentiate beteen photos of sunsets and pictures of houses, please get in touch by PM! I'd like to chat with you.)

The images on the Target site that don't have alt tags are image maps that consist largely of text. As I said in an earlier post, any OCR software bundled with a bottom-of-the-line scanner would have no difficulty in interpreting those images.

That's not to say that an interpretation of an image would be flawless, but these are processes which could and should be taken if an image contains no alt tag.